Geezer

Proof of the Last Extinction Event 12980 years ago.

Recommended Posts

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for your support
Buy Ex-C a cup of coffee!
Costs have significantly risen and we need your support! Click the coffee cup to give a one-time donation, or choose one of the recurrent patron options.
Note: All Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.

BO posted a video about this event a couple of weeks ago, but I can't find that post. Some found the claim that the earth was hit by an Asteroid 12,980 years ago, that was an extinction event, an unsubstantiated hypothesis .  Schoch believes all life, or almost all life, was extinguished by that hit. Dr. Robert Schoch has written several books about this event and his belief that civilization was far more advanced at that time than what is generally believed today. And that event basically forced civilization to start over. That is a separate issue though and Schoch has presented evidence to back up his theory in his books and videos. 

 

Scientists have found proof the event did happen,and have also dated it as happening 12,980 years ago. The evidence confirms the earth was hit by an asteroid that extinguished virtually all life, similar to the hit 65 million years ago that killed off the Dinosaurs, and that event forced a restart of civilization. 

 

 

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     Two years after that NOVA special...this.

 

     I'll leave it to those here to read it (it has a fun bit on the one of the guys in the video) but here's some stuff on their evidence:



But all these claims have been sharply disputed in a series of scientific articles over the last 18 months. Examples include:

 

University of Wyoming archaeologist Todd Surovell and his colleagues couldn’t find increased magnetic spherules representing cosmic debris at seven Clovis sites. Nicholas Pinter and his colleagues at Southern Illinois University Carbondale argue the carbon spherules are organic residue of fungus or arthropod excrement. And Tyrone Daulton of Washington University in St. Louis and his colleagues reported that supposed nanodiamonds formed by the impact were misidentified.

 

Speaking of the various reports, Surovell said, “We all built a critical mass of data suggesting there was a serious problem.”

     Anyhow, updated comet theories exist where we collided with a disintegrating comet (or something like that) since the old theory just plain failed to pan out (the evidence just doesn't fit).  Or, there's the competing massive volcanic eruption theory.  The evidence for that is stronger but it's much less sexy.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter the topic be it religion, politics, or history, or the quality or quantity of the evidence, there will always be those that disagree. And that is a good thing because it forces more exploration and debate. As far as this topic goes, I think it is logical, rational, and even inevitable that Earth has been hit with comets and asteroids in the last million or so years.And I think the odds suggests more than once.

 

So, just because it makes sense to me and the evidence seems compelling, at least to me, I going to say that Schoch is correct. If someone presents a more compelling argument for the massive climate change, the oceans rising 400 feet in a short period of time, & the destruction of multiple civilizations in a short time period, and the extinction of large numbers of animals and civilizations in a metaphorical wink of an eye, then I will go where the most compelling evidence leads me.

 

And for now, anyway, the evidence and common sense tells me it was a comet or asteroid strike that did it. I can think of nothing else capable of that kind of widespread destructive power with such instantaneous catastrophic results.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Moving through time, here's an article from the Comet Research Group from 2016 trying to address critics: https://cosmictusk.com/comet-research-group-responds-to-robert-schoch/

 

Snipped from the linked article: 

 

In closing, it is crucial to re-emphasize that the YDB layer, dated to approximately 12,800 years ago, contains a unique assemblage of exotic proxies that has never been reported to result from solar flares, wildfires, human activities, volcanism, or any other known natural terrestrial process. Instead, the only process known to produce that full range of proxies is a cosmic impact event. Thus, unless some new evidence comes to light that has never been seen before, the best current explanation for the proxies in the YDB layer is a cosmic impact event. For detailed information on the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, go to www.CometResearchGroup.org

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 


Criticism


A study of Paleoindian demography found no evidence of a population decline among the Paleoindians at 12,900 ± 100 BP, which was inconsistent with predictions of an impact event.[31] They suggested that the hypothesis would probably need to be revised.[32][33] There is also no evidence of continent-wide wildfires at any time during terminal Pleistocene deglaciation,[34] though there is evidence that most larger wildfires had a human origin,[34] which calls into question the origin of the "black mat."[35] Iridium, magnetic minerals, microspherules, carbon, and nanodiamonds are all subject to differing interpretations as to their nature and origin, and may be explained in many cases by purely terrestrial or non-catastrophic factors.[36]

 

If it is assumed that the hypothesis supposes that all effects of the putative impact on Earth's biota would have been brief, all extinctions caused by the impact should have occurred simultaneously. However, there is much evidence that the megafaunal extinctions that occurred across northern Eurasia, North America and South America at the end of the Pleistocene were not synchronous. The extinctions in South America appear to have occurred at least 400 years after the extinctions in North America.[37][38][39] The extinction of woolly mammoths in Siberia also appears to have occurred later than in North America.[37] A greater disparity in extinction timings is apparent in island megafaunal extinctions that lagged nearby continental extinctions by thousands of years; examples include the survival of woolly mammoths on Wrangel Island, Russia, until 3700 BP,[37][38][40] and the survival of ground sloths in the Antilles,[41] the Caribbean, until 4700 cal BP.[37] The Australian megafaunal extinctions occurred approximately 30,000 years earlier than the hypothetical Younger Dryas event.[42]

 

The megafaunal extinction pattern observed in North America poses a problem for the bolide impact scenario, since it raises the question why large mammals should be preferentially exterminated over small mammals or other vertebrates.[43] Additionally, some extant megafaunal species such as bison and Brown bear seem to have been little affected by the extinction event, while the environmental devastation caused by a bolide impact would not be expected to discriminate.[37] Also, it appears that there was collapse in North American megafaunal population from 14,800 to 13,700 BP, well before the date of the hypothetical extraterrestrial impact,[44] possibly from anthropogenic activities, including hunting.[17]

 

Scientists have asserted that the carbon spherules originated as fungal structures and/or insect fecal pellets, and contained modern contaminants[7][24] and that the claimed nanodiamonds are actually misidentified graphene and graphene/graphane oxide aggregates.[23][45] An analysis of a similar Younger Dryas boundary layer in Belgium yielded carbon crystalline structures such as nanodiamonds, but the authors concluded that also did not show unique evidence for a bolide impact.[46] Researchers have also have not found any extraterrestrial platinum group metals in the boundary layer which would be inconsistent with the hypothesized impact event.[47] Further independent analysis was unable to confirm prior claims of magnetic particles and microspherules, concluding that there was no evidence for a Younger Dryas impact event.[48]

 

Other research has shown no support for the impact hypothesis. One group examined carbon-14 dates for charcoal particles that showed wildfires occurred well after the proposed impact date, and the glass-like carbon was produced by wildfires and no lonsdaleite was found.[49] Analysis of fluvial sediments on Santa Rosa Island by another group also found no evidence of lonsdaleite, impact-induced fires, or extraterrestrial impact.[28]

 

Research published in 2012 has shown that the so-called "black mats" are easily explained by typical earth processes in wetland environments.[6] The study of black mats, that are common in prehistorical wetland deposits which represent shallow marshlands, that were from 6000 to 40,000 years ago in the southwestern USA and Atacama Desert in Chile, showed elevated concentrations of iridium and magnetic sediments, magnetic spherules and titanomagnetite grains. It was suggested that because these markers are found within or at the base of black mats, irrespective of age or location, suggests that these markers arise from processes common to wetland systems, and probably not as a result of catastrophic bolide impacts.[6]

 

A 2013 study found a spike in platinum in Greenland ice. The authors of that study conclude that such a small impact of an iron meteorite is “unlikely to result in an airburst or trigger wide wildfires proposed by the YDB impact hypothesis."[15]

 

Finally, researchers have criticized the conclusions of various studies for incorrect age-dating of the sediments,[50] contamination by modern carbon, inconsistent hypothesis that made it difficult to predict the type and size of bolide,[51] lack of proper identification of lonsdaleite,[52] confusing an extraterrestrial impact with other causes such as fire,[53] and for inconsistent use of the carbon spherule "proxy".[54] Naturally occurring lonsdaleite has also been identified in non-bolide diamond placer deposits in the Sakha Republic.[13]
 

 

     I'm too busy to bother with this right now.  This is from Wikipedia.  It addresses stuff in the post above.  I couldn't find the anti-comet groups' site from which to pull a nice quote so this will have to do.

 

     ETA: Here's a good article.  I'd include something from it but, as I said, I'm busy working on something else at the moment.

 

          mwc

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good OP video.I watched the whole thing.  I'm not willing to agree that, from the evidence presented, a comet hit the planet 12,800 years ago, however.

 

But I would say that scientists stubbornly defend their own opinion on something by spinning up its importance, while poopooing other scientists' opinions/evidence. . And it's a matter of keeping the income flowing with whatever the prevailing opinion is of the place you work for. Or keeping up appearances for the sake of your next book's audience.

 

I think Mark Boslough is  probably a stand-up guy, but I was put off by his use of the "extraordinary evidence" cliche as well as applying the  non-scientific principle of "Occam's Razor."

 

The more I read about scientists bickering with each other and trying to discredit each other , the less I am inclined to believe any 'evidence' from anyone.

 

I thought Dalton's evidence against West was pretty damning until I read this.

https://cosmictusk.com/allen-west-defense/

 

edited.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, midniterider said:

I think Mark Boslough is  probably a stand-up guy, but I was put off by his use of the "extraordinary evidence" cliche as well as applying the  non-scientific principle of "Occam's Razor."

 

May I ask why you think Occam's Razor principal is non-scientific?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, midniterider said:

Good OP video.I watched the whole thing.  I'm not willing to agree that, from the evidence presented, a comet hit the planet 12,800 years ago, however.

 

But I would say that scientists stubbornly defend their own opinion on something by spinning up its importance, while poopooing other scientists' opinions/evidence. . And it's a matter of keeping the income flowing with whatever the prevailing opinion is of the place you work for. Or keeping up appearances for the sake of your next book's audience.

 

I think Mark Boslough is  probably a stand-up guy, but I was put off by his use of the "extraordinary evidence" cliche as well as applying the  non-scientific principle of "Occam's Razor."

 

The more I read about scientists bickering with each other and trying to discredit each other , the less I am inclined to believe any 'evidence' from anyone.

 

I thought Dalton's evidence against West was pretty damning until I read this.

https://cosmictusk.com/allen-west-defense/

 

edited.

 

From the link:

 



Allen’s mistake 13 years ago was failing to navigate California’s “guild” bureaucracy. It has no bearing on the excellent science that he has done, as monitored by scores of collaborators. Aspersions by Rex Dalton that Allen West somehow falsified evidence of magnetic spherules, nanodiamonds, and other impact markers are preposterous considering the impossibility of generating these materials in one’s basement.

All of the YD impact data that Allen has produced have been independently verified by other researchers.  Indeed, considerable new evidence will soon be published. Critics who failed to verify some aspects of the work should be advised that the “absence of evidence is not the evidence of its absence.”

 

I saw a lot of emotional sounding appeal in the critical article when I first read it. More emotional sounding than scientific. All these personal jabs at West. Apparently they are unfounded, as I figured they were. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     So when they say:



But Vance Holliday, a University of Arizona archaeologist who has studied Clovis sites for 30 years, found this explanation nonsensical. Such mixing of spherules from different eras could invalidate any conclusion that higher spherule counts represented evidence of a comet impact.

     That's basically a hit job?  Emotional?  Not scientific?  Because that's the accusation.  That there appears to be some contamination and it's fishy.  Maybe it was from sloppy work or maybe it was intentional for whatever reason but it's there and their explanation isn't satisfactory.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

May I ask why you think Occam's Razor principal is non-scientific?

 

The theory with the least amount of assumptions should always win by default? I don't think so. Is Occam's Razor a law of physics? Or a philosophical principle?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor#Controversial_aspects_of_the_razor

"Kant felt a need to moderate the effects of Occam's razor and thus created his own counter-razor: "The variety of beings should not rashly be diminished."[

"Karl Menger found mathematicians to be too parsimonious with regard to variables, so he formulated his Law Against Miserliness, which took one of two forms: "Entities must not be reduced to the point of inadequacy" and "It is vain to do with fewer what requires more."

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/08/occams-razor/495332/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether we got hit by a comet or not, life remains pretty much the same in 2018.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

The theory with the least amount of assumptions should always win by default? I don't think so. Is Occam's Razor a law of physics? Or a philosophical principle?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor#Controversial_aspects_of_the_razor

"Kant felt a need to moderate the effects of Occam's razor and thus created his own counter-razor: "The variety of beings should not rashly be diminished."[

"Karl Menger found mathematicians to be too parsimonious with regard to variables, so he formulated his Law Against Miserliness, which took one of two forms: "Entities must not be reduced to the point of inadequacy" and "It is vain to do with fewer what requires more."

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/08/occams-razor/495332/

 

I'm not sure this is how I understand occam's razor should be applied. I agree you don't apply it by default, but give it serious consideration. So I would say some people apply it non scientifically, but not that the principle itself is non scientific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dueling PHD's, it just doesn't get any better than that. :yelrotflmao:

 

Wasn't there another thread about why experts are usually wrong? B)

 

This is a fun topic but I seriously doubt there is any answer that will satisfy all the skeptics. Aliens, I think it was Aliens collecting specimens to take back to their home planet. :ph34r: :battle:

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Geezer said:

Dueling PHD's, it just doesn't get any better than that. :yelrotflmao:

 

Wasn't there another thread about why experts are usually wrong? B)

 

This is a fun topic but I seriously doubt there is any answer that will satisfy all the skeptics. Aliens, I think it was Aliens collecting specimens to take back to their home planet. :ph34r: :battle:

 

Christian: My pastor knows all.

Ex-Christian: Scientists know all.

 

Same worship, differnt hero. :)

 

(dodges tomatoes)

  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, midniterider said:

Christian: My pastor knows all.

Ex-Christian: Scientists know all.

 

Same worship, differnt hero. :)

 

(dodges tomatoes)

 

No tomato but an observation. We know that Christians often make a claim of knowing all to some degree. Can you actually show where the ex-Christians you are talking about actually claim scientists know all? (If you did find one they clearly don't bother listening to scientists telling them they don't know all.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

No tomato but an observation. We know that Christians often make a claim of knowing all to some degree. Can you actually show where the ex-Christians you are talking about actually claim scientists know all? (If you did find one they clearly don't bother listening to scientists telling them they don't know all.)

 

No, my comment was metaphorical...or hyperbolic...or sarcastic. Take your pick. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Geezer said:

Dueling PHD's, it just doesn't get any better than that. :yelrotflmao:

 

Wasn't there another thread about why experts are usually wrong? B)

 

This is a fun topic but I seriously doubt there is any answer that will satisfy all the skeptics. Aliens, I think it was Aliens collecting specimens to take back to their home planet. :ph34r: :battle:

 

I heard Boslough smoked pot when he was 19. CAREER DISCREDITED! (haha)

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     Well, I guess if you're all going with BO's ironclad logic on things I've got nothing more to say here.

 

          mwc

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, mwc said:

     Well, I guess if you're all going with BO's ironclad logic on things I've got nothing more to say here.

 

          mwc

 

 

I do note a worrying trend where people are saying "experts" are pretty much always wrong, therefore any idea from anyone is of equal value. These people think they are properly sceptical when they are actually cynical and the distinction is important. It's not just happening here, but across wider society, and not just in science. Trump has given licence to people here (In NZ... yes its exists) to simply proclaim any view they don't like is "FAKE NEWS". It's not just happening on fringe internet boards, but in mainstream society.

 

So what we are heading to is that everyone's opinion is just as valid as anyone else's. Experts are really experts, they don't know much more than you but they have a fancy piece of paper from a corrupt organisation.

 

This view of course gets straw-manned into "Oh you think scientists and experts have the TRUTH" NO! But I recognise my own knowledge limitations and the fact that over time scientists generally sort out what is more true to reality from garbage.

 

/Rant over

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While driving I went through, "The Great Debate" on Rogan, where Shermer came in for a skeptic voice on the very material we're discussing here about the comet impact.

 

It's a big long debate / discussion that is very much like the one we've had here, in terms of the style and direction taken by skeptics and also those bent on holding ground with the status quo. And there was some good agreement by the end of it all after all the points had been made. One of those points being that those who are claiming that the extraterrestrial impact theory has been refuted, has itself already been refuted and has since gained a lot of traction in the mainstream community beyond the so called refutation back around 2011. 

 

Anywho, here's the big long discussion in context: 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems in the scientific community this debate still rages. While the hypothesis is interesting and solves a number of issues there is no direct evidence for an impact so relies on proxy evidence. And while one side say the proxy evidence shows a meteor event, others say it doesn't. As of July 2018 a group of scientists were preparing a response outlining their contentions with the hypothesis.

 

So do not panic, the scientific community is debating this. They are not covering anything up or attempting to hold to an agenda.

 

It's interesting to note that a similar decades long discussion centred around the meteor impact that killed the dinosaurs. In that case they actually found the impact crater which concluded the debate.

 

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/younger-dryas-comet-impact-cold-snap 

 

From what I can tell the two major contentions for the YDE is a massive ice melt into the sea causing rapid cooling, or the meteor impact. Neither hypothesis has enough evidence so far to be declared to be the correct one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really enjoyed that documentary. In my older years, this is all new to me because when I was busy serving the invisible god  my whole life, I was taught that any type of evolution was wrong and of the devil and it came from 'Man's' intellect (which of course was not of god).

 

I can't give any opinions. I just enjoy all the different theories and discoveries. I'm going to watch the one Josh put up tomorrow night! And I love reading all the comments! 

(hugs) to you all.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

From what I can tell the two major contentions for the YDE is a massive ice melt into the sea causing rapid cooling, or the meteor impact. Neither hypothesis has enough evidence so far to be declared to be the correct one.

 

At 2:50 and beyond they go into these details. It seems that there's evidence for an asteroid but not comet impact. The other issue is the rapid melting of north American glacial ice which left traces of massive water movement of fresh water from inland out to the seas. That's something that Carlson travels around looking at. So it seems that another scenario is an asteroid impacting large ice glaciers over the land sending massive fresh water retreats off of the land mass. Again, these pod casts are long but if you're going on a road trip or killing time at work or something, they're interesting to get into. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

Again, these pod casts are long but if you're going on a road trip or killing time at work or something, they're interesting to get into. 

 

Or mowing lawns - you just can't see any visuals. I listen to a lot of stuff like this while mowing lawns. Learned so much about evolution like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now